Tekaima Community of New Eden Pilgrims

This is mainly a response to Mr. Stitchers requirement to religion or more exact faith in the divine and the divine itself to be provable rationally to be rational - as formulated in the thread "Meditation on: Religion". To not derail the Thread of my fellow Praetorian any further, I opened this one for the tangent at hand. Anyone interested in this topic should read the linked thread first, to understand the matter at hand. As one can read in there Mr. Sticher was compelled to accepted that logic reasoning, the tool of rational proof, can't be accounted by itself and thus is not demonstrable by reason.

Apparently though he didn't understand the implications of that until now, which leads me to the posts I'd like to respond here:

Stitcher wrote:

Let me get this straight... you're expecting there to be some means other than reason to demonstrate that something is reasonable?

You are aware of what the word "reasonable" means, right? "Amenable to reason"? If something is not demonstrable with reason then it is, by definition, unreasonable to accept it.

No, i don't expect other means to demonstrate that something is reasonable, but there are things that are or at least might be reasonable even though we are not able to demonstrate, that is to prove, that they are.

Now, let's do what you so much like to do and have a look into a dictionary? I'll even concede to use the same one as you used earlier:

Definition of: reasonableadjective 1) having sound judgement; fair and sensible2) as much as is appropriate or fair; moderate

You will notice here, that nothing here implies that something that is reasonable needs to be demonstrably so, by logical proof. In fact, logical proof only can offer us to give account to what is reasonable by logical necessity, as everything that is by logical proof reasonable is so by logical necessity, and everything that one can prove logically to be irrational is so by logical necessity.

The absence of proof that something is rational is not the same as the proof of irrationality though, it is merely the proof that it is not necessarily rational or reasonable, thus it might still be possibly rational and/or reasonable. As follows by simple modal logic.

So, if you require logical proof for something to be accepted as reasonable, you do, by necessity cast aside everything that is possibly rational and reasonable as well as everything that is in a non-logical way necessarily rational and reasonable, as long as it is not at the same time logically necessary.

As we already agreed that logical reasoning is impossible to be proven by logical reasoning, your requirement of rational demonstration, that is logical proof, is self defeating, as your very foundation of logical reasoning is then to be discarded as irrational and unreasonable. The requirement you raise is thus, by necessity irrational, as it is self defeating and above and beyond that makes rationality impossible - or at least rationally impossible.

You should be prepared to accept that there are some things that are - or at least might be - reasonable, without us being able to prove that they are. Things like logical reasoning - or the divine.

I apologize deeply for the distress. When I had spotted your request for a reasonable demonstration of the use of inductive proofing, I had thought that this argument would suffice. It is in fact considered the fundamental inductive proof.

Oh, that must have been a misunderstanding: I was not asking for a reasonable demonstration of the use of inductive proving (as inductive proof is only possible with the mathematical inductive method anyway, which is an application of deductive logic), but to provide a legitimate demonstration, that is a logical proof, that inductive reasoning (in general) is justified.

Scherezad wrote:

I understand now that you don't see this as a valid demonstration of a reasonable inductive argument, but I can't entirely see why. When I made the statement it was not for the purposes of undermining your beliefs or for directing your discussion in any direction - my interest was only in supplying the requested example.

I do see it as a valid demonstration (in the sense of 'presentation' but not in the sense of logical demonstration, that is proof) of a reasonable deductive argument (as mathematical induction is deductive). I don't see it as logical proof that inductive reasoning in general or deductive reasoning in general are justified - as it's not even aimed at providing that proof.

Also, be assured that your statements in no way undermine my beliefs, in fact they do quite the opposite.

Scherezad wrote:

Your expansion shows that your interest is more in the axiomatic nature of the fundament, however. I won't intervene on your discussion deeply, but will only say that when constructing the set of axioms, it is important that the set be sparse and contain only those axioms which are neccesary and sufficient for the operation of the system. Any beyond this set would render it a non-partition. If you'll allow me to think on your position a bit more, I'll post again later with a better reply.

Indeed: As my claim is that logical reasoning can't account for itself by necessity, I requested to provide proof that the fundament of every logical reasoning, be it deductive or inductive, is justified. It is in fact a very interesting point that mathematics gives a set of criteria for the axioms. I think this is exactly because axioms (unless redundant) cannot be derived by principles of deduction, nor are they demonstrable by mathematical proofs, simply because they are starting points; there is nothing else from which they logically follow otherwise they would be classified as theorems. Next to the axioms one would still have to show that the other foundation of mathematical proof is valid: deductive reasoning.

Scherezad wrote:

You will have to excuse my lack of knowledge of philosophy or the differences between philosophical and mathematical induction - I am led to believe that they are not the same?

Infact mathematical induction and philosophical induction are quite different: Mathematical induction is a case of what philosophers refer to as "deduction" or deductive reasoning, which is in stark contrast to what philosophers refer to as "induction" or inductive reasoning. While deductive reasoning is rigorous, in the sense of mathmatical rigour, inductive reasoning is non-rigorous and thus don't provide proof but provide inductive probability and thus support for the conclusion. It suggests truth of the conclusion, but does not ensure it.

Scherezad wrote:

In any case, while interesting, I find philosophy mostly useful in mental training and not in generating useful answers to problems. Philosophy must yield to science as does theory to experiment. I do admire the formality and deep history of the practice, however.

I don't agree with you opinion that philosophy must yield to science – just as mathematics shouldn't yield to science. First, similar to mathematics, philosophy provides the fundament needed for the exercise of any natural science or science in general. Second, natural science can't justify itself: it needs philosophy for that. Third: There are fields of philosophy like ethics or aesthetics that have no necessary relation to the sciences.

Otsito Mining and Manufacture

Corelum Syndicate

You should be prepared to accept that there are some things that are - or at least might be - reasonable, without us being able to prove that they are. Things like logical reasoning - or the divine.

This is where it all falls apart. Linguistic acrobatics aside, you're setting logical reasoning and "the divine" as equal. They quite demonstrably are not, as one can actually be supported and the other has less than nothing supporting it. Personally, I have a softer approach to these things. I don't bother requiring proof of everything, but I certainly do require some support and reasoning, none of which has ever been found among the religious.

Oh, there's those who try, but sooner or later they're forced to go "You have to just have faith" when reasoning fails to produce anything but very wobbly constructions that fall apart under the weight of even a cursory inspection.

You should be prepared to accept that there are some things that are - or at least might be - reasonable, without us being able to prove that they are. Things like logical reasoning - or the divine.

This is where it all falls apart. Linguistic acrobatics aside, you're setting logical reasoning and "the divine" as equal. They quite demonstrably are not, as one can actually be supported and the other has less than nothing supporting it. Personally, I have a softer approach to these things. I don't bother requiring proof of everything, but I certainly do require some support and reasoning, none of which has ever been found among the religious.

Oh, there's those who try, but sooner or later they're forced to go "You have to just have faith" when reasoning fails to produce anything but very wobbly constructions that fall apart under the weight of even a cursory inspection.

It really is the same with reason. That's why skepticism prevails until today. Logical reasoning and the divine are not entirely equal, that is true, but they are equal in the respect of their justifiability.

Center for Advanced Studies

Gallente Federation

First id like to commend you upon your skill in the use of this form for proof and logic, i spent last days eyeing it ower, and i cant challange you in this form... I do find it intriguing, but as i have looked it ower, im asking myself if its not as rigid as it is useful

And we should also state that this is a form created by humanity, based upon how humanity percive things, its a thought process thats deviced to fit the word as humans understand it... i wonder if the sleepers, or other alien santient beings use the same thought process, or if they have other ways to under stand and reason to have come as far as they have...

Math is also sometihng we have defined, its a tool, we use in fysics as an example, and fysics is something we use to explain the universe, like you and me, we need a language to describe what we do, Math is one of those, but like all science and when the math been put into a theory, it needs to work in practise and be tested in the real world.

I cant understand why you cling so hard to these absolute thought patterns, some part of me logically raseon it might be your way to hold onto something you cant see, and since you cant see it, no one else should also be able to see, but i cant say, understanding of the human mind or emotions, never were my strong side

The more you define somthing, the harder it is to look passed what you have defined

Brutor Tribe

Minmatar Republic

Logical reasoning and the divine are not entirely equal, that is true, but they are equal in the respect of their justifiability.

Reformed epistemology is just another exercise in religious naval gazing, and it fails for the same reason as the watch maker argument.

Many rationalists argue that the watchmaker argument fails because it is a circular argument, god would have to have a creator himself if such an argument were valid. Only, for a rationalist, this shouldn't be a problem. The universe could be infinite, an infinite regression of intelligent life is logically possible. The argument fails because it fails to ask the question, "How do we know that a watch is made by a watch maker?"

We know, the same way we know that a birds nest was made by birds, or that an anthill was made by ants. It is something we have learned. A cave man would have no idea that a watch was made by his own species.

How do we know of religion? Why do the Amarr have specific practices that they follow? They have learned these beliefs, they have learned these practices. The adoption of belief and facts are not fundamentally different.

Cogito ergo sum - the only absolute truth one can know is that you exist. Everything else that you know as a fact requires a degree of faith to accept. It is reasonable to accept something as fact if the degree of evidence is enough to justify the magnitude of the claim that is being made.

I am conscious, this is self evident to me. I see and feel that I have a body, my senses tell me this. They may be wrong, but I also see other bodies who communicate in a similar fashion to me, and what I know of biology tells me that they work in a similar function. So I think it is reasonable to believe that they are also conscious, and that we are sharing an external, objective reality.

All but the first sentence in that paragraph is a statement of belief, but the justifiably of those statements is not equal to belief in the divine. Belief in the divine has a degree of justifiability, but the magnitude of such a claim is huge, and the evidence to support it comes from tradition and hear-say. It is not reasonable to accept it as fact.

We are emotional creatures, we are not motivated by reason, or faith. Emotion places value on what observe and think and we go from there. I value reason because of the emotional attachment I have to the concept. Practitioners of religion place value on tradition for the same reason.

Belief in the divine is the result of placing value on tradition, a value that has not been tested through empirical observation, and incorporating those values into a reasoning process. As such, people with such beliefs literally do not know what they are talking about when they speak of their own religious beliefs. They do not understand their own beliefs because they have not been tested with the process by which facts - and faith - are measured.

Wrote: Cogito ergo sum - the only absolute truth one can know is that you exist. Everything else that you know as a fact requires a degree of faith to accept. It is reasonable to accept something as fact if the degree of evidence is enough to justify the magnitude of the claim that is being made.

I am conscious, this is self evident to me. I see and feel that I have a body, my senses tell me this. They may be wrong, but I also see other bodies who communicate in a similar fashion to me, and what I know of biology tells me that they work in a similar function. So I think it is reasonable to believe that they are also conscious, and that we are sharing an external, objective reality.

Unless ofcourse you are sharing/part of anouther santient beings dream or thought process, i myslef see it as highly unlikly couse that mean that what i write here for you to read, would also implicate that i am part of that dream, or that this is just words part of your dream... but its a interesting thought

first, I'm not making the statement that reformed epistemology is making here, so, I'd appreciate if you'd stay on topic. Second, the cartesian "cogito ergo sum" isn't quite as self-evident as you paint it here, it's far from being an absolute truth. It presupposes for example that the inference from "cogito" to "sum" is a valid one. Third, the claim that logical reasoning works is just as big of a magnitude a claim as the claim that the divine exists: if you want to claim that it is not, be prepared to show how it is smaller.

Also, the value of religion and belief in the divine have been empirically tested and those experiments have largely come to the conclusion that belief in the divine have a positive effect on the believer.

That aside, the scientific method is meant to produce facts about the natural world, so unless you subscribe to the philosophy of naturalism (which can't be shown to be any more justified that a religious world view by the scientific method, by the way) it's just not the method to measure faith. Obviously you have the same problem as Mr. Stitcher as you put faith in that scientific method, without having 'tested' it and it's foundations.

I can't blame you that you don't test the scientific method by itself, though, as that would be circular and thus not admissible. Neither can you test the logical reasoning that the scientific method presupposes by the scientific method: You can't test something, by something that presupposes it's validity. Similarly you can't test logical reasoning by itself. Thus your trust in the scientific method is as ungrounded in the scientific method and logical reasoning as the belief in the divine is.

So, your argument collapses on itself. - As you would have known if you had read the posts in the thread I linked.

Cpt. Ivory:

While you haven't been able to grasp the fullness of my formal argument, you seem to have a fair grip on the conclusion that follows in from it: Logical reasoning is too rigorous to account for everything reasonable. It's not a useful criterion for evaluating logical reasoning itself or whether belief in the divine is reasonable or not. The only thing it can evaluate is that some things are by necessity reasonable and some are not.

As careful analysis will show, this can't be done for either logical reasoning or belief in the divine - thus leaving both in the vast territory of things that may or not may be reasonable. Actually in the vast majority of cases we can't logically prove the rationality or irrationality of something.

So, I don't cling that hard to these thought patterns of rigorous logics: I do employ them though to show that they collapse on themselves if one clings to them like Mr. Stitcher does or Cpt. Braitat does apparently as well. It's an intrinsic criticism exclusive rationalism and of idolizing rationality like Mr. Stitcher does.

Faithfully,N. Mithra

Alexylva Paradox

You have asserted repeatedly that utility doesn't meet your criteria for proof. Your criteria for proof are, in fact, unattainable and impossible. I cannot accomplish the impossible, and am no longer content to furnish you with opportunities to congratulate yourself for creating an impasse.

You are not, in short, demanding proofs - you are demanding the resolution of paradoxes. The only requirements that are self-defeating are the ones YOU demand - all others, you ignore, regardless of their merit, strength or validity.

Quote:

I don't cling that hard to these thought patterns of rigorous logics: I do employ them though to show that they collapse on themselves if one clings to them

You state in one half of that sentence that you don't adhere to the principles of logic, and then claim to be employing them in the second? I'm sure in the deluded land of your mind that makes sense, but to the rest of us it just shines a light on why we all need to be reminded now and then of that old adage about not arguing with idiots.

Far better is this analogy: "Debating with a theist is like playing chess against a pigeon. It doesn't matter how good I am, the pigeon's just going to knock over the pieces, crap on the board and strut around as if it's the victor."

I love a good debate. This is not a good debate. This is the interlocutory equivalent of attempting to wrestle smoke, and I'm done wasting my time on it.

the cartesian "cogito ergo sum" isn't quite as self-evident as you paint it here, it's far from being an absolute truth. It presupposes for example that the inference from "cogito" to "sum" is a valid one.

The expression, "Cogito ergo sum" is a rationalisation of an underlying sensation. My own consciousness is self evident. I exist, in some form, and for me that is an absolute truth. If you are self aware, then your own existence is an absolute truth for you, the only one you have if you are like me.

Quote:

Third, the claim that logical reasoning works is just as big of a magnitude a claim as the claim that the divine exists: if you want to claim that it is not, be prepared to show how it is smaller.

You obviously did not understand my previous post. I never claimed that because it is an idiotic comparison to make. You are comparing a method to a piece of information, a tool to a product.

Quote:

That aside, the scientific method is meant to produce facts about the natural world, so unless you subscribe to the philosophy of naturalism (which can't be shown to be any more justified that a religious world view by the scientific method, by the way)

There is no fundamental difference to the way a naturalist and a theist absorb information. We all have senses which absorb information, the difference is the method to which faith is assigned to information. A naturalist assigns faith based on the idea that there is a consistent, testable objective reality. A theist assigns faith based on the interpretation of tradition. Neither is morally superior, but the former is obviously superior when one wishes to understand objective reality.

Of course, once faith has been assigned to information the course of action(s) that result will determine what our senses absorb so the full effect is more continual than what I have implied with the above statement.

Quote:

it's just not the method to measure faith. Obviously you have the same problem as Mr. Stitcher as you put faith in that scientific method, without having 'tested' it and it's foundations.

One does not need a method to prove that one plus one equals two. The very idea is absurd.

Quote:

So, your argument collapses on itself. - As you would have known if you had read the posts in the thread I linked.

I did read them, your ability to talk in circles is a skill that is often demonstrated by the barbarians your culture produces.

Far better is this analogy: "Debating with a theist is like playing chess against a pigeon. It doesn't matter how good I am, the pigeon's just going to knock over the pieces, crap on the board and strut around as if it's the victor."

I love a good debate. This is not a good debate. This is the interlocutory equivalent of attempting to wrestle smoke, and I'm done wasting my time on it.

Church of The Crimson Saviour

Sani-Sabik

I love a good debate. This is not a good debate. This is the interlocutory equivalent of attempting to wrestle smoke, and I'm done wasting my time on it.

This always happens with the deniers of Faith. Too stubborn to admit even the possibility that they are wrong, they start foaming at the mouth and screaming that they "didn't want to have this debate anyway".

I love a good debate. This is not a good debate. This is the interlocutory equivalent of attempting to wrestle smoke, and I'm done wasting my time on it.

This always happens with the deniers of Faith. Too stubborn to admit even the possibility that they are wrong, they start foaming at the mouth and screaming that they "didn't want to have this debate anyway".

I think his point was that he did want a debate, but it turned out not to be one, by any reasonable definition of it. I think he's right, in the end. Would you like some breadcrumbs, little pigeon?

You have asserted repeatedly that utility doesn't meet your criteria for proof. Your criteria for proof are, in fact, unattainable and impossible. I cannot accomplish the impossible, and am no longer content to furnish you with opportunities to congratulate yourself for creating an impasse.

You are not, in short, demanding proofs - you are demanding the resolution of paradoxes. The only requirements that are self-defeating are the ones YOU demand - all others, you ignore, regardless of their merit, strength or validity.

My criteria for proof are attainable. For example one can easily prove that 6=/=4. My contention is, that if you merely use utility as a criterion then you are assessing not whether reason is reasonable, but whether it is useful: And that if you go by this criterion you can't rule faith in the divine out, as it has been shown experimentally that faith in the divine is useful.

You are the one demanding proof that faith in the divine is rational: If you can't then in the same way provide proof for the rationality of rationality, your requirement is inadequate and irrational. I don't ignore the other proofs you bring up: They are merely not enough to rule faith in the divine out or are supporting that faith as much as the support logical reasoning.

Until now you failed to provide any method of assessing the validity of faith that would undermine it, but not undermine the validity of reason itself.

Stitcher wrote:

You state in one half of that sentence that you don't adhere to the principles of logic, and then claim to be employing them in the second? I'm sure in the deluded land of your mind that makes sense, but to the rest of us it just shines a light on why we all need to be reminded now and then of that old adage about not arguing with idiots.

There's a difference between slavishly clinging to something like you do and adhering to them when they are useful.

Stitcher wrote:

Far better is this analogy: "Debating with a theist is like playing chess against a pigeon. It doesn't matter how good I am, the pigeon's just going to knock over the pieces, crap on the board and strut around as if it's the victor."

See, Mr. Stitcher, this is a lovely example of an Ad Hominem, you claim my arguments are false because I'm a theist.

Stitcher wrote:

I love a good debate. This is not a good debate. This is the interlocutory equivalent of attempting to wrestle smoke, and I'm done wasting my time on it.

Well, I'm happy to see that you only produced smoke here and that you realized that.

The expression, "Cogito ergo sum" is a rationalisation of an underlying sensation. My own consciousness is self evident. I exist, in some form, and for me that is an absolute truth. If you are self aware, then your own existence is an absolute truth for you, the only one you have if you are like me.

It really isn't meant to be the formulation of something of psychological appeal, no. There is nothing like an "absolute truth for me", as this would be a truth relative to me.

Braitai wrote:

You obviously did not understand my previous post. I never claimed that because it is an idiotic comparison to make. You are comparing a method to a piece of information, a tool to a product.

Well, you do claim here that faith in the divine is a product and not a tool: And that logical reasoning is a tool but not a product. You'd have to show that. But usually, a tool is a product.

Quote:

There is no fundamental difference to the way a naturalist and a theist absorb information. We all have senses which absorb information, the difference is the method to which faith is assigned to information. A naturalist assigns faith based on the idea that there is a consistent, testable objective reality. A theist assigns faith based on the interpretation of tradition. Neither is morally superior, but the former is obviously superior when one wishes to understand objective reality.

Of course, once faith has been assigned to information the course of action(s) that result will determine what our senses absorb so the full effect is more continual than what I have implied with the above statement.

The former is only superior in assessing objective reality if one is holding to the idea that objective reality is entirely naturalistic: Which the naturalist can't assess as it's a metaphysical claim. A theist doesn't assign faith by tradition, at least not necessarily so, this is just you wanting it so. A theist isn't bound to any specific way of assigning faith, but mostly, within theology faith is assigned by multiple criteria: reason among them.

Quote:

One does not need a method to prove that one plus one equals two. The very idea is absurd.

Well, I see you're not good in mathematics, then.

Quote:

I did read them, your ability to talk in circles is a skill that is often demonstrated by the barbarians your culture produces.

Well, please, go check the logics behind what I said: Show that it's not valid, instead of taking refuge to an Ad Hominem.

I love a good debate. This is not a good debate. This is the interlocutory equivalent of attempting to wrestle smoke, and I'm done wasting my time on it.

This always happens with the deniers of Faith. Too stubborn to admit even the possibility that they are wrong, they start foaming at the mouth and screaming that they "didn't want to have this debate anyway".

I think his point was that he did want a debate, but it turned out not to be one, by any reasonable definition of it. I think he's right, in the end. Would you like some breadcrumbs, little pigeon?

The real tragedy of today is that people use "rational" and "reasonable" as if they would mean "I said so" and "I agree with this". A shame, really.

Tzedakah

Aegis Militia

I love a good debate. This is not a good debate. This is the interlocutory equivalent of attempting to wrestle smoke, and I'm done wasting my time on it.

This always happens with the deniers of Faith. Too stubborn to admit even the possibility that they are wrong, they start foaming at the mouth and screaming that they "didn't want to have this debate anyway".

I think his point was that he did want a debate, but it turned out not to be one, by any reasonable definition of it. I think he's right, in the end. Would you like some breadcrumbs, little pigeon?

The real tragedy of today is that people use "rational" and "reasonable" as if they would mean "I said so" and "I agree with this". A shame, really.

Agreed

Lets say for a moment we were debating the origin of the universe (both classic and simple for the purpose of this example).

Those of faith will argue that logic leads them to God as the source of all creation.Those of science will argue a accepted theory of a big bang for instance.

Both could for the sake of argument prove to be very wrong but here comes the kicker:

Both have to take a leap of faith.

Neither party was there at the dawn of time and no one recorded accurately enough anything in history that would prove 100% how it all came about. This leads any individual to use reason to the best of their ability to come to logical conclusion but at the end of the day its still a leap.

This is what annoys me as a whole of those of science (and I shalt name names but you know who you are) who would claim that those of faith are somehow intellectual challenged and those of faith (same as above) Who feel we shouldn't dig deeper with the tools we have.

We all are sitting at the edge of the precipice of knowledge. Some of us will take the leap the rest of us will not care, at the end of the day its still a leap.

Darkness is more then absence of light, it is ignorance and corruption. I will be the Bulwark from such things that you may live in the light. Pray so my arms do not grow weary and my footing remain sure.

I love a good debate. This is not a good debate. This is the interlocutory equivalent of attempting to wrestle smoke, and I'm done wasting my time on it.

This always happens with the deniers of Faith. Too stubborn to admit even the possibility that they are wrong, they start foaming at the mouth and screaming that they "didn't want to have this debate anyway".

I think his point was that he did want a debate, but it turned out not to be one, by any reasonable definition of it. I think he's right, in the end. Would you like some breadcrumbs, little pigeon?

The real tragedy of today is that people use "rational" and "reasonable" as if they would mean "I said so" and "I agree with this". A shame, really.

Agreed

Lets say for a moment we were debating the origin of the universe (both classic and simple for the purpose of this example).

Those of faith will argue that logic leads them to God as the source of all creation.Those of science will argue a accepted theory of a big bang for instance.

Both could for the sake of argument prove to be very wrong but here comes the kicker:

Both have to take a leap of faith.

Neither party was there at the dawn of time and no one recorded accurately enough anything in history that would prove 100% how it all came about. This leads any individual to use reason to the best of their ability to come to logical conclusion but at the end of the day its still a leap.

This is what annoys me as a whole of those of science (and I shalt name names but you know who you are) who would claim that those of faith are somehow intellectual challenged and those of faith (same as above) Who feel we shouldn't dig deeper with the tools we have.

We all are sitting at the edge of the precipice of knowledge. Some of us will take the leap the rest of us will not care, at the end of the day its still a leap.

Well put. Science does not directly imply the absence of deities (it simply stays mute as regards to their presence or absence.) In other words, this is a case where an absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence. As to those who believe that religious tradition can answer all questions, here's a hint: Quote me the Scripture (or any other religious passage) that forces 2+3=5 to hold true. (The mathematical proof of such a fact is a different matter, of course; that'd be a job for Peano arithmetic.)